|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 3, 2005 14:04:42 GMT -4
Michael Tuttle will probably answer you and explain what he did to create those panoramas.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 3, 2005 14:09:36 GMT -4
Maybe. However, the biggest difference lies in the panshot. If i ask Michael Tuttle if he just stitched the photos as are or resized them, would he respond?
I'll let someone else answer that, as I haven't paid any attention to that issue.
I mean, there is very huge differences in the mountain size.
Not when you measure visible features on the mountain between the two photos. The apparent intersection of the mountain with the "ground" is not the same in the two images, which makes it look bigger. But if it really was, you'd see the distance between features on the mountain to be larger in the second photograph than in the first, which is not the case.
Try it for yourself; look at the higher-resolution images linked to above by Count Zero and measure between sets of features on the mountainside. They're the same, or a shade smaller on the second image - which is just what you'd expect if the camera was further away.
The mountain is essentially the same size in the two photographs because it's 10 km away in one, then 10 km + 200 m in the other - not enough to make an appreciable difference. It looks bigger in the second because you're seeing more of it due to a better line of sight towards the mountain base.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 3, 2005 14:18:38 GMT -4
You can't see tiny details in a faraway mountain without optical aids, you can only see them if you are close enough. Surely you know that? On Earth, that's mostly because there is an atmosphere in the way: not the case on the Moon...
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 3, 2005 14:46:01 GMT -4
sts60, I am speaking about the panorama
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 3, 2005 15:35:00 GMT -4
Well...we have all expressed a dislike for making detailed analysis based on a panorama. Something that was stitched from multiple stills is going to have interesting discrepencies.
I do wish you would take more time to type, LordOfTheRings. When your writing is unclear, it is difficult for others to follow your thoughts. When you take the time for clear writing, you often benefit from clearer thinking as well; to phrase a thing carefully is to think carefully about what you mean to say.
I _think_ that you have expressed disbelief in certain foreground and midground illusions ever occuring on Earth. I suppose you have never seen a man appear out of nowhere in the middle of a golf course...or a car appear suddenly in the middle of a bare stretch of road. Both of these happen when foreground blends too smoothly into midground, making the hollow between them vanish.
Ah; I have a better example. If you've done any bay sailing (or even swimming on a choppy enough lake), you should have noticed many cases in which surface objects vanished between wave crests, and mysteriously re-appeared when you rose to the top of a crest yourself.
In any case, this is the "ridgeline" phenomenum we have been speaking of.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 3, 2005 22:36:20 GMT -4
Well.....................
I did some detective work with PSP and discovered a few things. Firstly, in these images the second mountain is bigger, not by much but it is. It's also on a slighty different angle. I determined this by overlaying the images. I also found out that the images were not the same size, the first is a larger image size. 360x382 compared to 360x360. So I when and get the bigger images, some problem. The mountain in the second image is larger by a fraction and the image size of the first is bigger. So I got the HR versions, same problem. First image is bigger, mountain in second is larger. So I overlapped the crosshairs. Bingo, they don't match. Although the first image is a larger size, it's crosshairs are in fact more compact. So I resized the second image to match the crosshairs on the other and I found a number of things.
The second mountain still looked bigger, but it's not. The features on the mountain matched in their distance, but when they were positioned, they and the angled side were wrong, I couldn't get them all to line up, when two features were matched, the others were off. So I rotated the second image about 6° to the left, and apart from a little change, clearly due to parallax, they now matched almost perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 4, 2005 5:09:46 GMT -4
Please someone write to me a clear question about the panorama so I can send it to Michael Tuttle. thnx
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 4, 2005 5:17:24 GMT -4
ps. how come you know about the Chouf Mountains? I remember the US Navy rearranging the Chouf Mountains, back in 1983. Actually, I had several Lebanese friends (Christian & Druse) when I was a teenager living in Virginia. They used to tell me all about their vacations back to the mother country.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 4, 2005 6:09:17 GMT -4
I have sent the reply of Jay to him to ask him if it is right and fits how he did the panorama. Let us wait and see. meanwhile, does NASA say that the LR is 4kms far from the LM in the last photo here www.aulis.com/jackstudies_18.html
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 4, 2005 7:56:03 GMT -4
Please someone write to me a clear question about the panorama so I can send it to Michael Tuttle. thnx Perhaps this hasn't been stated clearly enough: You cannot compare the size of objects in photographs if they have been resized by a different amount.In the Apollo images, if the distance between the crosshairs is not the same in both images, you cannot make valid comparisons. You cannot see the crosshairs in the panorama, so you have to go back to the original images from which it was made. AS17-147-22517 and AS17-147-22518 were both used in the panorama, and AS17-147-22527 is the comparrison image. Resizing them so that the grids are of equal size is only the beginning. You must (among other things) take into account differences in elevation and any lateral movement of the photographer to make an accurate analysis. If you do not wish to go to the trouble of doing this, then do not try to point out any size "anomalies".
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 4, 2005 9:28:51 GMT -4
meanwhile, does NASA say that the LR is 4kms far from the LM in the last photo here www.aulis.com/jackstudies_18.htmlNo. The rover is not kilometers away from the LM. LotR, of all things we can discuss here, this is not rocket science. You don't have to take my word for it or Jack White's or Aulis. Just go outside and walk around your world. If you don't have mountains, use distant buildings or clumps of trees. If you have a camera, take photographs. You can demonstrate these effects for yourself. You don't need these authors insisting on doing your thinking for you.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 4, 2005 9:56:38 GMT -4
meanwhile, does NASA say that the LR is 4kms far from the LM in the last photo here I'm not sure the final distance, I'd have to look it up and I can't be bothered at 3am in the morning. However the position was planned. On each of the J-Missions (15, 16 and 17) They tried to get a TV shot of the LM lifting off. On 15 the tilt on the camera broke and they were only able to get a shot of the lift off itself, they weren't able to track it. On 16 they had left the rover to close and the timing was out so that the LM was lost rather quickly. Finally on 17 they got it right and were able to "follow" the lift off all the way up. Jack makes many of his usual mistakes on this page. He ignores the HR images that show parts of the "missing tracks" and also that the act of walking about and kicking up dust quickly obscures the tracks. Even though he comments about there being footprints about, he doesn't seem to click to them causing the tracks to be covered. He also makes the illogical mistake of thinking items such as rakes, shovels and sample boxes can't be removed from the rover (similar to his 9/11 images were he seems totally unaware that while moving vehicles will appear to be stationary in an individual photo, they will then be seen in different places over a series of shots.) He can't even tell why the suspension looks different when there is a heavy load on the rover as compared to without a load. And once again he proves his total inability to be able to perceive a 3D reality in a 2D image. This is also the guy that doesn't know which side of the LM the Rover was packed. Jack might be a great studio photographer, but when it comes to photo analysis, I wouldn't trust him to analyse a photo of a birthday cake.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 4, 2005 9:58:57 GMT -4
I agree; Jack White has very poor photographic analysis skills.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 4, 2005 10:00:33 GMT -4
I have sent the reply of Jay to him to ask him if it is right and fits how he did the panorama. Let us wait and see. meanwhile, does NASA say that the LR is 4kms far from the LM in the last photo here www.aulis.com/jackstudies_18.htmlIf you look up the photo numbers of the two pictures of the rover which JW claims were taken on the way to or at the final parking place, you'll see that the first of these actually comes from the second EVA and only the second from the final parking place on the third EVA. This gives plenty of opportunity for the crew to shift the movable equipment around. One of JW's "changes", the way the back wheels are attached, appears to be just a difference in suspension ride height, doubtless due to the unloading of samples and equipment. As to the lack of rover tracks in the third photo, the footprints provide the explanation - the crew have kicked dirt over the tracks. The inset photo in the "both at final station" comparison was actually taken earlier on the third EVA. Edit PS. It took me about five minutes to track down the photo data on the web, so the incorrect attribution of the locations by JW is either shoddy research or a deliberate attempt to mislead. Edit PPS. Seems PhantomWolf posted much the same explanation while I was writing this. Great minds...
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Oct 5, 2005 1:15:50 GMT -4
|
|